single pilot ifr trip tonight

"Dan Luke" writes:

May I suggest that you try it under the hood? I've found that it makes
flying my airplane no-gyro very easy. That may not be true of higher
performance airplanes, I haven't tried it in one.

Personally, the only time I've found flying under the hood or foggles
useful was on cloudy nights over relatively unpopulated terrain --
otherwise, the light and shadows in the airplane make the hood even
less effective at simulating IMC flight than a flight simulator on my
home computer. I recognize that other pilots may have different
experiences, of course, but that's one of the reasons I took my IFR
flight test in IMC, so that I would know if the examiner thought I was
safe in the real thing.

Agreed, but I don't think I'm a good enough pilot to use it safely
in a partial-panel situation, where I'm already under a great deal
of stress.

Try it. I think you'll find it reduces the stress.

I'm worried that it might reduce the stress a little too much, causing
me to fixate on it and ignore the TC and ASI, but I will try it some
time with an instructor or safety pilot anyway.


Thanks, and all the best,


David

(Jim Harper) wrote
Oh, sure, I have a couple of steam gauges, for that total failure, but
if you ask me to do a full IPC to PTS standards without the use of my
moving map(s) would leave me doing it with T&B, AS and altimeter.

Well, in your case you need the screens - but not necessarily moving
maps - for full panel operation. If I were giving you an IPC, I would
configure your screens not to show you a moving map. I'm sure it can
present an HSI and a bunch of engine gauges. I would also expect you
to do a non-precision approach and unusual attitude recovery partial
panel. First, because a non-precision partial panel approach is now
required as part of an IPC, and appropriate PTS standards are
provided. Second, and more importantly, because it's a demonstration
of safety margin through skill.

See, nobody really expects that you're going to do a circling NDB to
mins to a short obstructed runway if you lose your gyros and/or moving
maps. That's not really the point. The point is that being able to
do it in training demonstrates a skill reserve - the ability to handle
a workload far in excess of what's normal for the aircraft. That pays
dividends two ways.

First, if both your fancy boxes go TU, you have a real fighting chance
of getting on the ground in one piece. However, as you point out,
it's highly unlikely. Second, and far more importantly, the ability
to stretch to those limits makes routine IFR, well, routine. It also
makes minor problems minor. If you can handle a full procedure
partial panel circling NDB to a short obstructed runway, then copying
a complex clearance and verifying it while hand flying in turbulence
becomes a non-event. Is it important to do that when you have a
properly functioning autopilot? No. But it sure will be important to
have the spare cycles when a loose wire in a gyro causes the autopilot
to go hard over on the ailerons. More importantly, it will be
important to have the spare cycles to catch the error you will
inevitably make one day - like accidentally disengaging the altitude
hold while you're troubleshooting some minor item.

My
electrics are 3x redundant, and I have two elecronic boxes, so failure
would be pretty darn unlikely...

3x redundant? Do you mean you have 3 fully independent electrical
busses? Or at least two? My electrical system includes 2 generators
(which, because they don't require power to the field, will keep
working if the battery and/or master contactor fail) and a battery -
but only a single bus. I still keep a yoke-mounted GPS with backup
batteries - given their low cost, it seems silly not to. I expect you
do something similar. An overlay approach using the handheld (not in
moving map mode, if available), ASI, TC, and altimeter makes a lot of
sense to me - as a hedge against the highly unlikely dire emergency,
and far more importantly as a proficiency maneuver. And yes, I would
expect that to be flown to PTS standards for a partial panel approach.
Do you really feel that's unreasonable?

But I digress. My system is not dissimilar to some that are rolling
down the pike...to the point that there will be a generation of pilots
(in the not very distant future) who learn with the moving maps, etc.

I doubt it. In 2000, the single engine GA fleet numbered 150,000 and
averaged almost 30 years. I've just read an FAA publication that
predicts that by 2020, the average age of the fleet will approach 50.
How many of those glass cockpit GA airplanes are being built? A few
hundred a year at most?

And I am sure that there are several other things that...if you
couldn't do it that way, you just weren't good enough.

I think a lot of that thinking does permeate GA. I'm not sure it's
altogether a bad thing. For example, in those days you allude to when
pilots wanted to feel the wind on their faces, because you couldn't
trust the ASI, the ASI's available truly were not reliable. Neither
were the engines - the idea of flying at night in a single engine
airplane without a parachute was simply insane. Much of flight
training focused on the emergency power-off landing.

Back when a pilot could expect an engine failure every hundred hours
(or less), not being able to pick a good spot and put it right there
meant that at best, the pilot was going to tear up a lot of airplanes.
At worst, he would get injured or killed. If you couldn't cut the
throttle and put it on the spot, you just weren't good enough.

These days, the equipment is dramatically more reliable. We now fly
night and IMC in single engine airplanes, even carrying passengers for
hire, and nobody has a parachute. But the private pilot is still
expected to be able to handle an engine failure by picking a field and
setting up to land there. At the commercial pilot level, he is
expected to cut the engine abeam the numbers, no higher than 1000 AGL,
and put it inside a 200 ft window. At the ATP level, he has to do it
three times consecutively.

Perhaps one day aircraft engines will achieve the reliability of
modern auto engines, and aircraft fuel systems will become
sufficiently simple and robust that people will stop running out of
gas. At which point, it would make sense to drop the power-off
landing in favor of a precautionary landing with partial power. But
first off, we're not there yet. And second, I can't help thinking
that important skills will be lost.

An awful lot of accidents happen on landing. I find it difficult to
believe that developing the skill to consistently land on the spot,
power off, won't make a pilot more likely to maintain control on a
difficult landing. The value of the power-off spot landing is largely
(though not entirely) gone as a necessary maneuver, but I think it
remains valid as a skill building maneuver.

Single pilot GA IFR has a hideous accident rate, almost all of it
pilot error. What's more, much of it appears to be egregious pilot
error, like descending below published minimum altitudes, turning in
the wrong direction, etc. In my opinion, it's usually pilot error due
to loss of situational awareness. A pilot who has lost the big
picture can easily make an error that's way worse than any likely
equipment failure in a well-equipped airplane with good redundancy.
For that reason, I believe it's actually more important to train for
the worst case scenario in the well-equipped airplanes - not because
the worst case scenario is more likely in those airplanes (it's not -
just the opposite) but because those airplanes tend to have more
complexity, more speed, and more range - all the ingredients for
making pilot error more likely.

Even when the day comes that moving maps are so ubiquitous and so
reliable that everyone has one all the time (and that day is not here,
and may not be here for decades, if ever) there will still be a lot of
value to flying without them in recurrent training. Maintaining
situational awareness without the moving map is more demanding. It
requires that the pilot think faster, and integrate more sources of
information to build a complete picture. Developing situational
awareness skills is vitally important - especially as it seems that so
many IFR accidents are the result of deficiencies in those very
skills.

A good friend of mine recently had to give up flying the 727 because
his airline retired them. He is now in an Airbus. Unlike the
majority of Airbus captains, he makes it a point to hand fly it (to
the extent the equipment allows it) any time it's below the flight
levels, even though it's totally unnecessary. He has two reasons -
first, it actually is possible, with enough failures, to get down to
the point where it's necessary. However, even he admits this is
highly unlikely - only happened a couple of times in twenty years of
operation. Second, and far more improtantly, at his airline the
Airbus fleet has a disproportionate share of the minor incidents -
blown tires, hard landings, operational errors - that sort of thing.
He fully believes that this is the result of skill deterioration among
the crews. His airline has recently added the hand-flying he does to
the recurrent training regimen.

Michael

"Barry" wrote
I'm also troubled. When I do an IPC with someone who uses the autopilot a
lot, I do part of the flight with and part without. I know that he will use
the autopilot when flying without me, so it doesn't make sense to refuse to
include that as part of the IPC. Same argument applies to advanced avionics.

I don't think you understood. Yes, the use of advanced avionics and
autopilots should be part of the recurrent training regimen if they
are used in real life. However, the pilot should also be able to meet
the IPC requirements without them.

More equipment in the plane makes proper recurrent training longer and
more difficult, not shorter and easier.

Michael

David Megginson wrote in message ...
(Snowbird) writes:
With that totally correct set of priorities, that means you're
also going to be setting up your GPS "when the opportunities
present themselves", vs. *having it set up and ready to use*.

Just out of curiosity, do you fly with your cell phone plugged into
your headset and ready to use

No. It's within reach with the adapter cord plugged in, but there's
no good place to park it, near my headset and I wouldn't bother to
create one. I do use it on the ground before and after flights, which
is why it's close by and set up.

But I don't see nearly the same emergency value (in flight) in a
cell phone that I see in a GPS, sorry. Wouldn't bother me if it
were packed in the back in my purse.

I'd expect that that would be significantly more valuable in an
IMC emergency

I don't see that, and in fact the priorities you correctly list
contradict that view. A GPS helps (well, helps me anyway, YMMV) with
aviating and navigating. A cell phone helps only with communicating.
Communicating with anyone is a way lower priority than aviating
and navigating. Bernoulli not Marconi makes the plane fly, etc etc.

Well here's another I don't get (how does the altimeter help you
head towards VMC?

Airspace is 3D -- sometimes the nearest safe and accessible VMC is
above or below you.

Good point.

If you look back at Google, I said that I thought the statement was
too strident. I don't argue that there are benefits, but I think it's
an exaggeration to say that lack of a fully set-up handheld GPS in a
vacuum or electrical failure would normally be a life-or-death issue

If you look back at Google, you'll see that the "life or death issue"
is YOUR introduction. What I said is that IMO a GPS still in the
flight bag is not of much practical use (useless) in a tight spot.

I stand by that belief, but it's a considerably different statement
than making it a "life or death issue". My cell phone is useless if
it's sitting on the front seat of my car while I'm in my plane, but
it hardly follows that it's a life-or-death issue not to have it.

I also explicitly pointed out that I didn't consider something had to
be a "life or death" matter to have great value in an emergency, or
to be worth setting up ahead of time.

If we go
around telling pilots that *everything* is life-or-death

Then it's a good thing that wasn't what I said. Kindly don't
put words in my mouth.

There are a lot more important things to have
prepared in IMC, including (in approximate order of importance to me):

- more than one flashlight right at hand, with fresh batteries
- a very accurate knowledge where I am all the time

*sigh*

I suspect at this point that I might as well go spit upwind but:

One more time. The GPS is of great value in *giving* you very
accurate knowledge of where you are all the time, especially if
it so happens that you've been getting vectored around, your
groundspeed is varying widely, and you're very properly dividing
your attention between maintaining SA and updating wx/planning an
approach etc. IME, it is also of great value in aviating while
partial panel.

But it only possesses this value if it is *set up*, *on* and
*acquired* when things go south.

Otherwise, it has no immediate value, and will have no value until
you can pry enough attention lose from aviating, navigating, and
communicating to set it up and turn it on.

I call that 'practically useless', YMMV -- though it's rather
odd there's no connection he

- charts and plates already open and folded appropriately

Why is it important to have charts and plates already open and
folded appropriately?

Because if you need them in a hurry, they are *useless* to you
if they are packed away. They have no value until you can spare
the attention to dig them out, open them, and locate the relevant
portion.

Is having a chart folded rather than right-at-hand in a tight spot
a "life or death" situation? Probably not.

Is the chart useful to you in an emergency if it's packed away?
No. It is not. Until you can spare time to set it up, it might
as well be in Cahokia. It is "practically useless".

The set-up handheld GPS is undoubtedly a benefit, but it comes a bit
further down the list

Than a timer, or a flashlight (for daytime???), or a cell phone?

All I can say is I believe your priorities to be seriously mistaken.

But I grasp at this point that nothing I could say will have
persuasive
value to you, so hopefully anyone who cares has taken my point by now.

Over and out,
Sydney

(Snowbird) writes:

I don't see that, and in fact the priorities you correctly list
contradict that view. A GPS helps (well, helps me anyway, YMMV) with
aviating and navigating. A cell phone helps only with communicating.
Communicating with anyone is a way lower priority than aviating
and navigating. Bernoulli not Marconi makes the plane fly, etc etc.

My reason for using a cell phone to talk to ATC after an electrical
failure in IMC would be to get a lot of help with the navigating, up
to and including a PAR approach if there was a military base nearby.
If I lose electrical in high IMC, it should be a non-event -- just
descend below the clouds and proceed VFR to the nearest field. If I
lose electrical in low IMC, I'm going to need all the weather and
navigation information I can get.


All the best,


David

I think the point of Dan's question was to inquire whether you have tested
your theory that a GPS-derived HSI's lag is 'dangerous' or not. Everything
I've read suggests that it's perfectly possible to keep the plane upright
using this, although you'll tend to oscillate around your intended attitude
a bit because of the lag. I have a Garmin 196 which has this kind of setup,
but I have not really tried to use it as my primary instrument. I'm going to
do that test soon.

"David Megginson" wrote in message
...
"Dan Luke" writes:

May I suggest that you try it under the hood? I've found that it makes
flying my airplane no-gyro very easy. That may not be true of higher
performance airplanes, I haven't tried it in one.

Personally, the only time I've found flying under the hood or foggles
useful was on cloudy nights over relatively unpopulated terrain --
otherwise, the light and shadows in the airplane make the hood even
less effective at simulating IMC flight than a flight simulator on my
home computer. I recognize that other pilots may have different
experiences, of course, but that's one of the reasons I took my IFR
flight test in IMC, so that I would know if the examiner thought I was
safe in the real thing.

Agreed, but I don't think I'm a good enough pilot to use it safely
in a partial-panel situation, where I'm already under a great deal
of stress.

Try it. I think you'll find it reduces the stress.

I'm worried that it might reduce the stress a little too much, causing
me to fixate on it and ignore the TC and ASI, but I will try it some
time with an instructor or safety pilot anyway.


Thanks, and all the best,


David

(Snowbird) wrote
I don't think this point really ought to be argued. If you take
two pilots of equal, exquisite skill, both fully capable of plane
control at a near automatic level, which is going to have a better
grasp of the "big picture" when something significant changes
enroute? The guy who had to handfly the whole time, or the guy who
was able to turn the plane over to "George" for a few while he
processed the changes?

I'll bet money on the latter, every time. And that's the point of
this "value the autopilot" mantra.

Let's fast forward a couple of years. One of the pilots made it a
point to hand fly in IMC all the time. The other one turned the plane
over to "George" for a few when he needed to process the changes. Who
is more proficient now? Who is better able to divide attention?

For any individual flight, you're right. But in the long run, letting
"George" do it means that certain skills just don't develop. All else
being equal, the guy with the autopilot has an edge (however slight) -
but in reality all else won't be equal.

BTW - for a while, I worked with a low time pilot (less than 300 hrs
TT) whose IFR skills, by his own admission, were gone. His airplane
was a Tiger. He had an autopilot. In the entire time we flew
together, it was on for just about 10 minutes - long enough for me to
ascertain that he knew how to use it and understood its quirks and
limitations.

By the time we were done, he was hand flying two hour night-IMC legs
while effectively communicating with ATC and carrying on a discussion
with me about the best way to avoid the worst of the weather being
painted by his Strikefinder. I think it took him a little over 10
hours to get to that point. A little long for an ICC, I admit. In
fact, I signed off his ICC about halfway through the process - once he
demonstrated that he met the applicable standards. We kept flying
because he was looking for more than a signature certifying he met
minimum standards - he was looking for true IFR proficiency.

Michael

(Michael) wrote a lot of excellent stuff. I saved
a bit for response.

Michael: I appreciate your response, both for the extent that you
clearly thought it out, and for the time you took. I find your points
reasonable, and I accept it completely.

regarding: "3x redundant? Do you mean you have 3 fully independent
electrical
busses? Or at least two? My electrical system includes 2 generators
(which, because they don't require power to the field, will keep
working if the battery and/or master contactor fail) and a battery -
but only a single bus. I still keep a yoke-mounted GPS with backup
batteries..." Same deal here. Two separate
busses/batteries/generator/alternator (one of each) and a panel-mount
(velcro) handheld running off the airplane's batteries but with about
30 minutes of life when they are done. That's treble redundancy in my
book.

As far as my point on the moving maps, we are likely saying the same
thing differently, but if you fail my EFIS, the CNX 80 is going to
present its information as a map. If you fail my CNX 80, the EFIS is
going to present ITS information as a map. If you fail both, the
handheld is going to ...yep, a map. By map, I mean a graphic
representation of what I need to do next.

I don't have a separate OBS/resolver. It is unnecessary since the CNX
80 is certified to TSO C146a. It does have a built-in navcom, but
without the HSI, I have no needles to follow. It does, however,
present a graphical representation (map) on its screen.

I've actually saved a bit of panel space to put that extra set of
needles in if it becomes obvious that I need it.

Truth be told, I am still shaking my system down, and have not/will
not go into the soup until I am convinced that I am not missing
something. At this point, I am 99.9% convinced that I am NOT missing
something.

Thanks again for the well thought out reply.

Jim

"Jeremy Lew" wrote in message ...
I think the point of Dan's question was to inquire whether you have tested
your theory that a GPS-derived HSI's lag is 'dangerous' or not. Everything
I've read suggests that it's perfectly possible to keep the plane upright
using this, although you'll tend to oscillate around your intended attitude
a bit because of the lag. I have a Garmin 196 which has this kind of setup,
but I have not really tried to use it as my primary instrument. I'm going to
do that test soon.

I've heard good things about it, but IMO a simple
GPS moving map is very helpful partial panel,
especially if a 'direct to' button has set up
a courseline. It is not a primary instrument,
and I would not want to depend upon it to keep
the plane upright, but in any kind of rough air
where the compass and TC are bobbing a mad dance
it is very helpful in assessing how well I am
doing at holding heading (ie, at keeping the
wings level).

Obviously other people's milage can vary, and does

Sydney

(Michael) wrote in message . com...
(Snowbird) wrote
I don't think this point really ought to be argued. If you take
two pilots of equal, exquisite skill, both fully capable of plane
control at a near automatic level, which is going to have a better
grasp of the "big picture" when something significant changes
enroute? The guy who had to handfly the whole time, or the guy who
was able to turn the plane over to "George" for a few while he
processed the changes?

I'll bet money on the latter, every time. And that's the point of
this "value the autopilot" mantra.

For any individual flight, you're right. But in the long run, letting
"George" do it means that certain skills just don't develop. All else
being equal, the guy with the autopilot has an edge (however slight) -
but in reality all else won't be equal.

Apples and oranges to the point I'm trying to make.

Instrument skills are a "lose 'em or use 'em" proposition,
there's no question. Someone who relies on George will
lose the ability to do routine things like:

By the time we were done, he was hand flying two hour night-IMC legs
while effectively communicating with ATC and carrying on a discussion
with me about the best way to avoid the worst of the weather being
painted by his Strikefinder.

But if the contention is no competent, IMC proficient pilot
ought to need an autopilot, my point is that when the autopilot
comes in really handy is when things aren't routine. When you're
flying outside familiar territory and are handed a major (or
maybe the 2nd or 3rd major) rerouting from ATC and you not
only need to process the route, you need to reassess the wx
and fuel pictures completely, esp. single pilot.

God himself would do better handing the plane-handling
over to George for a bit and freeing up some extra brain
cycles to 'get the picture'.

IMO anyway.

FWIW,
Sydney